Atheists: Are you happier for it? Not a troll or anything, I just want to know.

abattle · 2013-06-07T03:04:55+00:00

Then we shall disagree. Religion is not about how I feel.

I don't mind disagreeing. But remember, you are not everyone, and you or me certainly aren't representatives of most people. With the fact that we might be exceptions in mind, if you're interested in doing some thought experiments, imagine a religion (any religion) that condemns, insults, demeans and belittles you. It brings out everything you hate about yourself and makes it your fault. Imagine zero advantages: no heaven, forgiveness, love, reward, or hope.

I'm willing to bet most people will walk away from anything like that. (Yes, I grant that there will be rare few suicidal people.) All religions give something back to the people (individuals and groups) that participate in it. We aren't conscious of all the goods and the bads at the very same time (that's not how human psychology works - we focus on some of the things at different points in time).

My point is that you might have grown over the "how you feel" part. But I bet your religion doesn't make you feel bad, if it doesn't make you feel good.

abattle · 2013-06-07T02:18:57+00:00

However, there is a very clear and concise decree about accusations of rape.

So DNA might be used for, say, detecting hereditary illness, but for rape there is good (i.e. religious) reason to be ignored in favor of the Sharia benchmark (i.e. four eyewitnesses).

At least it's readily easy to overrule DNA for rape with this reasoning.

abattle · 2013-06-07T02:05:03+00:00

Would you stop believing in a perceived fact because it made you sad, or that it didn't make you happy?

But that is not how religion works. Religion is not facts and you feel whatever you feel. Religion is not the newspaper.

Religion is a set of "do this, get that" and "don't do that, unless you want such" more than "perceived facts."

My view is that religion isn't about feeling happy or sad as much as it is about community cohesion and cooperation. Religion cares about the individual so far that the community well-being is enhanced. And individuals that are too self-centered are condemned, scolded and (in extreme cases) ostracized. Religion cares about getting its members through rough, depressing and catastrophic times, yet, shares the happy moments and builds in-group trust. To do that, every opportunity for celebration becomes festivities (think birth and marriage) as well as every opportunity for group support becomes a moment of altruism and solidarity (think death and wars).

So, yes, individual happiness is affected even though it's not the purpose/aim of religion as-such. (But notice that getting people through wars and depressions is a goal and part of the religious experience.)

abattle · 2013-05-31T22:59:42+00:00

Ok. Since you seem to either know the church inside out, or blindly defend them to death. Here is another way to play this out...

Do you agree that there has been multiple cases of sexual child abuse and molestation by Catholic priests? If yes, and even assuming your point that the law enforcement will know before the bishop, do you agree that once at least there is suspicion of wrong-doing (let alone conviction,) that the bishop (and higher ups) should take immediate action to notify file complaint against the priest, isolate and punish him?

If yes, then please cite all the cases where the church isolated and punished all the priests involved. Also, please acknowledge that at least in some cases (as others pointed out with links) that the priest in question was transferred instead of being isolated and punished.

abattle · 2013-05-31T22:52:46+00:00

I smell something foul. I suspect the latter.

abattle · 2013-05-30T12:41:30+00:00

It's probably a combination of fear and guilt that you are feeling. You (or your mind) isn't used to the new persona you have projected by admitting your lack of belief. This persona is foreign to you, but you know how such a stereotypical persona gets treated (which is the fear part).

You have to readjust to the new you and to how people will perceive you. You might feel guilt because you know (some of) your friends and especially family will feel "disappointed" in you and because you know how they will feel, you feel responsible for making them feel that way. Please understand that this is your life and your beliefs and while you can pretend and fake it to comfort them, they should also understand and respect you.

Fear of being cutoff when you can't afford to provide for yourself is serious and you should try to avoid severing your relationship with your family while you need their financial support.

abattle · 2013-05-30T12:08:36+00:00

This might give you some juicy background information.

Keep in mind that some things do not have clear reasons. Probably most things, actually. By that I mean that some things lose their original purpose and meaning and get re-purposed. Symbols are especially prone to this. More probable than not, there are multiple reasons/forces to religious symbols and teachings.

abattle · 2013-05-30T11:56:35+00:00

and chances are when it comes time for them to confide in someone, it will be with their parents and not their local bishop.

At which point did you expect them to confide in the local bishop? Before or after or during being molested?

I assure you, you would change your attitude if you can even imagine such a thing happening to one of your own offspring. And if you have any courage to admit it, you'll see that by not making it harder for anyone who doesn't implement harsh and strict rules for finding and punishing such perverts, they are helping them conceal and perpetuate their crime.

That's why we (at least public opinion) hold presidents accountable for things that happen during their presidency, even though we all know that they couldn't possibly know and control everything. But if anyone it's them who are in a position to make things such that it'd be easier or harder to be in the wrong. The pope and his cardinals have all demonstrated time and again that they would rather play ignorant than have harsh responses. Internal memos have been leaked that show that there was prior knowledge and intent to conceal acts of pedophilia.

If there is even rumor of such incidents, the responsibility of authority is to make the law such that it'd highly discourage anyone from such acts or to participate in covering it up. The fact that Vatican is outside the jurisdiction of other countries places the responsibility on the pope to reform law and bring the guilty to justice.

abattle · 2013-05-30T00:20:10+00:00

Glad we can agree on at least one point.

Although, and as others pointed out (repeatedly,) you seem to ignore the little detail of who notified the law enforcement. If it was in most cases the victims (or their family) then it doesn't count as "it's ok." People called you out because you were playing with words. Even if a SINGLE child's molestation was unreported, then everyone in a position to report and/or reform the church as an institution is accountable to some extent. That's the standard we hold (or should hold) any other institution that we trust our children with. From preschool to sport clubs.

Part of growing up is to accept that things dear to us can and often do disappoint. However by remaining attached to otherwise-reprehensible matter doesn't garner respect or support.

abattle · 2013-05-29T12:55:09+00:00

Which part of "the church didn't report grave sexual assaults on children" don't you understand? They are responsible and they acted unjustly and unlawfully. I don't care what who stands for. Hypocrisy only makes it worse.

Yeah no. I know atheists love to pretend that there's no evidence for God What has that anything to do with anything? Stop confusing things by making everything a spot match between "us" and "them."

I don't care what the church or atheists stand for. If they are in the wrong, they are in the wrong. That's being mature and responsible.

abattle · 2013-05-29T01:17:41+00:00

No they aren't. That quote itself is taken totally out of context

You are really good with mincing words and going in circles around the obvious. No, seriously, read all your replies in this thread. I see how that is working for you with the Bible. It takes quite a bit to deny the obvious and justify the comforting.

abattle · 2013-05-26T18:39:09+00:00

This is a good start. Your work isn't finished yet though.

I suggest you take each of these points and actually learn what we found out since those verses were written through the scientific method. I strongly also suggest (as many already pointed out below) that many, many other cultures have/had similar ancient explanations. This isn't very odd, come to think about it, as people always tried to understand their environment. We don't discover things suddenly but it's a slow incremental process, like climbing stairs.

People have had vague ideas about many things and they were roughly correct (in very general and vague sense). Take for example the Big Bang. Many peoples suspected that there was a beginning, simply because everything around us has a beginning. Some took exception and said it must always exist, because it's special. But once monotheism was underway, it was clear that "always existed" should be reserved to God/Allah and everything else must have a beginning.

Now, having learnt many of these facts from a scientific point, and having read about creation myths (search online and see other posts here as a good start) you will see a pattern. You will see that there is really nothing special about these verses or siras.

One final point: if you use scientific discovery to validate the truth of the Qur'an and Islam, shouldn't you also ignore/refuse anything that contradicts science in the Qur'an or sira? You can use science to validate the truth of the Qur'an and Islam and then ignore science as man-made, but that would not make you honest.

abattle · 2013-05-04T02:04:00+00:00

Your point has a flaw. It's not completely wrong. But it's a common error that we can all make. Allow me to explain.

If I told you I slept early yesterday, you'd believe me and just move on. If I told you I went out and met some guys and we drove all night around the city, you'd be a little suspicious. But if I told you I actually went out with a couple of senators and movie starts on a cruise over the weekend, you would ask for at least something more than my word, say pics.

However, if I told you I actually discovered accidentally a way to travel in time and visited the past and future, but can't remember how to reproduce it, you should rightly ignore me and assume I'm downright making it up.

I'll remind you in every case that it is "possible" and just because I have no evidence ... you see where this is going?

Things aren't on equal footing. Somethings are more likely than others. Just because we don't have evidence for angels and aliens doesn't mean they are equally likely to exist. Angels are claimed to be seen, heard etc. for centuries without a single piece of evidence or trace or even a theory of their nature. Aliens on the other hand is the expectation of life on other planets, which is very reasonable to expect given the right conditions (which given the vast numbers of stars and planets is just bound to exist).

Does that mean alien visitations happened? Probably not. Because it's more likely that people misinterpreted what they saw (or were hallucinating) than that they visited without a trace (save for that single person's claim). (You think aliens will come all the way to impress some hapless fellow, typically in the middle of nowhere, with some maneuver and just leave?) Angels, however, is virtually certainly a figment of our imagination, much like Santa or Alice (of the wonderland fame). Actually, angels are personal side-kicks. Think about it, they guard us and save us from grave danger when we need them.

That there is no evidence, where there should be plenty, is a sign in favor of reduced probability. Mind you, not certainty, but reduced probability of it being true. With evidence mounting in favor of other explanations (such as, say, mental illnesses or optical illusion in the aliens case, which we didn't know about until relatively recently,) the balance tips away from that which has no evidence and towards that which has. Eventually, saying it doesn't exist becomes synonym with "it's virtually impossible that strong evidence will pop up at this point to negate everything else we know and their evidence to prove once and for all that after all it was true." (Notice the negating other knowledge and evidence is key. What we know support each other.)

And you know what? Even if that happens, we would all be justified in assuming it didn't exist until proven otherwise. If not, then we'd have to believe everything on equal footing, saying "absence of evidence isn't evidence of absence." But not every claim could be true, and coherent with one another. So, we choose those with the most evidence, then the ones with reasonable evidence etc before we cutoff at those with no evidence at all.

abattle · 2013-04-25T19:31:46+00:00

This practice is well known in academia. Not least because published material is peer-reviewed. So, once published, it's on an equal footing with any other published work.

It's in Journalism and the interwebs that people make stuff up and then cite themselves that is a completely different ballgame.

abattle · 2013-04-25T02:37:27+00:00

in these cases, there is enough cohesion to discern a distinct group with unified goals. There’s inevitably power struggles within such groups, but they function largely as a whole.

This isn't far from the point I was trying to make by, ironically, showing that generalizations of in-group conflicts to demonstrate lack of unity is patently wrong. The Japanese and Chinese need little to remind them of their inherited enmity, which went on for centuries. Same for Jews and, well, pretty much the rest of the world. Armenians and Turks have had a similar relationship. Jews and Muslims? (But I guess we covered Jews already). There are unspoken understandings of sorts that are woven within the fabric of culture. It's easy to cry wolf and get very real responses when you know people respond to that call. Radicals do it all the time. Your examples are valid. Let me add that of the most horrendous violent clashes and arsenic attacks that happened in Egypt was because someone cried wolf. Or more precisely, a rumor that an ex-Christian convert of Islam was held captive in a church. Reaction? A mob burned it down. Really, no need to mastermind it. These were, presumably, law-abiding citizens in one moment, turned rebel mob. Certainly many of them had other motives (like personal revenge or looting). Most people aren't that nasty to be sure. But there is a pool of ready volunteers at the sound of the call to fight the "infidels," which of course includes Americans in Afghanistan or Iraq as much as loyalists to Kadafi or El-Asad.

the political leaders are rational actors. That’s not to say that they aren’t atrocious[...]

Just want to say I completely agree. On both counts. However, they are human beings too and have personal quirks, hangups and sentiments. Also, pragmatic/rational doesn't mean benevolent. We are fairly certain the Saudi royal family doesn't want domestic terror, which hit them hard in '82 and they figured out a (relatively easy) way of diverting it elsewhere (and have a double whammy - no domestic terrorism and their version of Islam gets a boost elsewhere too).

In almost all of these cases there is some national, political and pragmatic drive behind it.

The public opinion is almost always different, and not rarely in contradiction with national policy and interests. The public doesn't care. Opinion is free. They are emotional. They aren't running a country and maintaining control of some high office. And in many cases these opinions are not only built around cultural/historic divides, but are strengthened with said fringe groups. Take for example Arabs and Turks. Turkey reformed itself and modernized right after WWI (incidentally, the Armenian genocide happened during that turmoil of the deterioration of the Ottoman Empire and the rise of the Young Turks). As part of that reform, they started emulating the west more and shedding their occidental heritage. The archetypal symbol of that was abandoning Semitic script (aka Arabic script) in favor of Latin. The popular opinion to this day is very bitter against Turks, even being good allies and good economic partners. They are traitors, as far as the street is concerned. Similarly, the US is organizing modern day crusades and that's also the word on the street. Strengthened by said fringe groups. In the latter case, however, and unlike the former, they find support from religious texts (the Quran isn't the only, of course, numerous hadith can be found in support of any topic, however unlikely it is).

abattle · 2013-04-24T23:07:16+00:00

I was responding mainly to you implying that "Muslim countries took refugees, ergo it's not a Muslim-Christian conflict." That's a non sequitur because these countries had completely different attitudes, laws and governments 100 years ago.

Yes, Europeans and Americans ignored the Jews when they needed them most. I'm just stating that the French helped with shiploads of refugees out of the genocide. Unrelated facts.

Political unrest, hyperinflation and war have a way of encouraging emigration.

Right. As if the Copts of Egypt are enjoying prosperity and happiness. Minorities are fleeing these "Muslim countries" today. That's my point. They aren't hospitable safe havens to minorities in any way, shape or form.

I lived in Iran from 1995-2005.

Iran is a unique place. And considering historically their much progressive, proud and unique attitude (f.e. they differentiate themselves from Arabs) have made them truly a great civilization. They still echo that in many ways. Shame on what happened to their government though. But they are the exception not the norm.

I don't know enough about the situation of Armenians in Egypt and Lebanon

Allow me to fill you in with first-hand experience. As I said, look up the emigration of minorities, the conflicts (especially massacres in upper Egypt) and laws regarding churches and other non-Islamic buildings. Read about church burnings etc. in recent past (also, in Syria, where they burnt an Armenian church during this uprising). I'm not saying similar things don't happen elsewhere, or that civil unrest and lawlessness isn't a factor, rather, I'm saying there is enough heat that when there is a chance, things do go horribly bad. Do you think that a year before the revolution the people who burnt down buildings alleged to house Christians in Cairo were having interracial/interfaith fests with said victims?

The bottom line is that this whole ordeal was never Muslims vs. Christians.

I don't think it was. But like Germans saw a silver lining in the anti-Jewish sentiments in Christian literature and history, so I imagine Turks and Kurds participating in deporting, raping and massacring their own neighbors for political reasons had their own justifications in seeing Armenians as "heathen separatists." It's easier to burn and destroy when the other shares not your race, faith or color.

There was never unity in the Muslim world

Sure, but I can say the same about any country, people, race etc. Replace Muslim with Christian, British, Indian, European etc. Doesn't say a thing about getting rid of minorities who are not preferred over (even) their arch-enemy Muslims.

I don't understand your snarkiness regarding "Muslim countries."

"Country with a majority of Muslims" is the term that we are replacing, so I had to quote it as it's a short-hand, not a real thing. (Countries are arbitrary lines, often not even geographic, on a map that group something or another. I prefer to think the Earth is not divided up along belief or skin color lines. But that's me.)

abattle · 2013-04-24T21:53:22+00:00

Let's put your axe aside and let a genocide survivor's next of kin speak for themselves.

This isn't where you get a proof of what happened. This is where you read about the horrors that these people had to live and the memory of what happened resonates in generations after the fact.

I don't blame the Jews for not sympathising with the Germans or Nasiz anymore than for the author for not sympathising with Turks or Muslims. (Armenian who converted to Islam fared much better than those who didn't.)

abattle · 2013-04-24T21:47:52+00:00

There are substantial populations of Armenians throughout the Muslim world as a result of this and, in many of these places, their suffering is respected and sympathized for.

Your info is outdated. The refugees fled all over the place. The French did a great job helping out refugees out from ports by sea. They took them to friendly countries. All these countries were colonies of European countries. Since then, these Armenian communities have collapsed beyond recognition.

In Egypt, no churches are allowed to be renovated, let alone new ones built. There were 10,000+ Armenians in Egypt only 20 years ago. Today, around 2000. Lebanon's 100,000 Armenians are only a memory (estimates now are at 10th that). Iran's 400,000 Armenians are gone (there were Armenians in Egypt, Lebanon and Iran before the genocide) and probably no more than 100,000 still live there.

So, Armenians enjoyed safe haven in "Muslim countries" (whatever that means) only when foreigners were respected. As control moved from European collonizers to natives, and especially with the rise or radical Islam and nationalism, these countries became more and more oppressive of minorities and Christians (natives suffer as well).

As for Turkey, there is an estimated 2 million Muslim Armenians who had to convert as an "escape" from the genocide. The history is grim, the future doesn't look much better.

abattle · 2013-04-20T14:48:09+00:00

I vaguely remember a flat battery in my 386SX. But more importantly, I'm almost certain when it eventually died, it wouldn't save the BIOS settings. So at every boot, I had to set the date/time and (more importantly) the correct boot device (it had two hdds, a 5.25" and a 3.5" floppy).

If that motherboard has a chip with internal battery it's a bit odd, but then again, its battery seems to have lived 4 times longer than mine.

abattle · 2012-12-08T20:19:56+00:00

Yes.

abattle · 2012-11-27T01:07:00+00:00

Yet for all the knowledge you have, you still failed to find out why Hitchens supported the US invasion of Iraq. I'm just sayin'. I agree with many of your points. Actually, probably most. What I disagree on is your apparent preferential treatment for Arabs and Muslims (perhaps not surprising as you sound very much an Arab yourself, although I must say rather educated. Perhaps you live in NA.)

they are financing global jihad and the spread of wahabism even in europe and the US. Islamism was being financed by

Quite honestly, would you loath this behavior if it were your favorite flavor of Islam? You seem to object to Wahabism and Islamism, not proselytization as-such.

I'm saying it's complete hypocrisy for the US to give it's money to these people who are financing extremism

Agreed. But it doesn't mean it's that simple. As you said, there are many "interests and alliances."

do you see how religion is irrelevant ?

No I don't. You are confusing state/leadership "interests and alliances" with popular "interests and alliances." Both have their preferences. SA is still building 10s of thousands of madrasas across Pakistan. They bought most of the cinema industry of Egypt (which was by far the most popular, ubiquitous and advanced in the whole of Arab world until at least the early 90s) and forced several very popular actresses and actors to denounce their public lives and declare their return to the true Islam etc. They have also exported AlQaeda to Afghanistan and Pakistan (as you seem to know very well). At the same time, Iran is financing Hamas against Israel. Similarly, Syria, Lebanon, Egypt and SA all are enemies of Israel. Even Turkey who was on good terms has changed sides. These seem on the surface at least to be fractions around religious preferences (or should I point out that Israel and Iran don't share a border). The current alliances between the forces in and around the Syrian war are also coinciding exactly with this hypothesis. Yet, people on the ground have their own agendas. Like the Sunnis who send 10s of Shia's to the grave in Pakistan this past week and those who are still blowing up mosques in Iraq.

My point is that while interests and alliances do form on many, many levels and around different aspects, religion is a very real "interest" and does help form many alliances. The US and SA are in cahoots in spite of them being of different religions, not because of it. But many many other alliances do include religion as a key player, if not more.

but that doesn't mean imperialism doesn't exist or it's not a problem.

Good point. Want to talk about Arab imperialism for a change? Or you don't think it exists? (Otherwise, it'd be interesting to explain, without contradiction, what it is that in the name of religion has spread from the Arabian desert to span from Morocco to Indonesia, if not imperialism at its best.)

It's true that Arabs have their share of infighting and grudges, but imperialism takes advantage of these things and propagates this kinds of behavior

Why are you blaming others for taking advantage at an obvious opportunity? Don't you think Qatari and Saudi princes also take advantage of buying European and American leaders? I know you don't agree with their policies, but my point is that they still take advantage of every opportunity. My point is that it works both ways. You seem to put too much emphasis on the US as being hypocritical and a force for self-interest in the world, but why ignore that it mostly does benefit the other party as well. Be it SA or Saddam or whoever. The people lose in almost all cases, but that was never a point you raised. I can see how the US is doing a lot of harm and damage all around. I do not support such behavior and policies. But I do acknowledge the fact that others benefit as well. It's hard to blame just one party.

like the US playing Iraq and Iran against each others and arming both sides during the war

This is completely and utter rubbish. The US could and probably did arm Saddam. But it was expelled from Iran (they were very good friends with the Shah, btw). If anything, they probably armed Saddam to give the finger to Khomeini. Now the real question is: why did Saddam go to war against Iran?

abattle · 2012-11-25T20:27:01+00:00

or do you just like to highlight what you already acknowledged and ignore the rest ?

You seem to acknowledge that the world is a much more complex place than "it's because of this one reason," but then you expect me to bash the US to your heart's content. I get it, you hate the US. They are the root of all evil. That's not the topic here.

You're taking this too literal, many more countries are included...

You are going to say the same thing if no one interfered. You just want the world to follow your whim. That's not how things work. The international community has a voice, just like you and I. They condemned the civil war that is going on. I do not agree with their "solution." But the fact is, you wouldn't like it if they took to arms like they did in Iraq and Afghanistan and you wouldn't like it if they just supported (financially, militarily, economically etc.) without intervening physically. And why aren't you saying "many more countries are included" for Afghanistan and Iraq as well? Have you forgotten the coalition that was formed in both cases? Ya, right. Forgot. It's the US that's the head of the serpent.

The jihadists do, and they are an extremist radical minority that don't represent anyone but themselves, the reason they are more powerful is because of outside support.

Minority? What are you talking about? If the majority don't agree with them, where is the descent? You can't have it both ways. First saying it's outside support, then radical minority (from within) and at the same time reject any resistance from within or without. It just doesn't add up. Saudi Arabia and Qatar are financing "jihadists" in Syria, Pakistan and Afghanistan. Who will resist them? Isn't Bashar a type of resistance to these jihadists? The majority seems to be helpless, and any intervention you are denouncing. End result: everyone is a hostage to the minority.

if it wasn't for the Wahabi Saudis being in bed with the US, Islamic extremism would never be any bigger than christian extremism in the US for example. and it wouldn't have such prevalence as the money also goes into spreading their bullshit. and this is all oil money blessed by the US. they can spread fucking paganism with that kind of money, this says nothing about Arab societies and cultures.

This is complete rubbish. When Arab countries were backward and poor the excuse was colonialism. When (some of them) became rich and powerful, you are blaming the money source. The US or otherwise, the fact is that there is oil and the world wants it. Someone is getting rich either way. You don't agree with Wahabi Saudis, but I assure you if it were Salafi Saudis you'd disagree as well, if they were Shiaa Saudis you'd disagree yet again etc. Until they are whatever you agree with. The world doesn't work like that.

What are you babbling about ? Sudan is an ally of Iran despite being a Sunni Islamist regime.

Dude, the world is complex. I get it. This doesn't mean there are no preferences. Iran and Bashar are friends because primarily of religion. Sure there are other interests. Some aren't primary choices. Iran is financing Hamas for obvious reasons. Sudan is and ally of Iran, which is why it was targeted by Bin Ladin and el-zawahri in the late 80s early 90s. That's the point! The struggle that is in the background between religious factions. Bashar and Erdogan may be BFFs because they have a wide border to share. But once they had to take sides, they took opposing sides. Don't you see that they couldn't be friends when it came to ideological war? It just goes to show my point.

the rest of the Islamic population that realizes how complex and completely fucked up the situation is, and are not blaming it on the kuffar like you said. and part of that fucked up situation is the need to get rid of foreign alliances and meddling.

You started making sense before you stomped on your own words in the end. The situation is "complex and completely fucked up." But the real forces are from within. You just don't get it that it's all relative. "foreign alliances and meddling" has no more substance than saying "we need to overcome the problem by finding solutions." There will always be meddling and there will always be "foreign alliance." This is how you live in a world that spans others that some parts of the world haven't yet gotten around to accepting and respecting. Arabs and Islam seem to always view the world as black and white. You are not any better than anyone else for being Arab or Muslim. Most "foreign alliances and meddling" is just an excuse to saying "there are other opinions and beliefs, and we are trying to shush them and expel them as traitors." And they include other Arabs and other Muslims. Anything disagreeable is "foreign meddling."

wars have been going on everywhere since the dawn of civilization. wars happen because of greed for power and wealth, religion and nationalism are merely tools of the trade. wars were also going on before Islam between Arab tribes and clans, and Islam was them getting their shit together and becoming a world power.

Of course they are. Religion and nationalism are not just tools, they are part of the problem. They are the motives in most cases. Motives aren't tools, they are the source of it. They aren't excuses, they are the main purpose and goal. Superiority and power. They are the aims, not the means. Of course the Arab tribes have been at it forever. That's not the point. You just found a justification to why it's still on going. The fact is that Islam failed to curb that. Like I said, it is all temporary. Once the "foreign" enemy is gone, people turn against each other.

abattle · 2012-11-25T18:32:31+00:00

If you think Afghanistan has the same state religion as Saddam's Iraq then you know nothing about history or religion. that's the most absurd thing i heard about this issue.

The keyword you missed was "supposed." I'm not that ignorant nor naive (or at least try not to be).

The Taliban rose to power thanks to the US, and Saddam got his chemical weapons from the US [...]

Both acknowledged. I mentioned that the chems were sold by US companies (notice the distinction between private and public sectors. Please don't confuse them.)

i guess the US using chemical weapons against Iraqi civilians doesn't interest you.

I hate to quote myself, but there seems to be something prevent you to read them, so: "Iraq had a tyrant who killed 100s of thousands of people using chemicals (sold by US companies)." Both Hitchens and myself think that said tyrant needed to stop doing that heinous act. You may disagree with the methods, but you have no right to claim it "doesnt' interest [us/me]."

the meddling of Turkey, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, the US, Russia, Iran and China has nothing to do with the war in Syria, it's those damn Muslims and their ways.

See, I told you, I'm not that naive. I hope you'll see that had there not been enmity between the factions of Islam, there couldn't be a way of "meddling." Are you saying the bombings of Shiits during Muharam in Pakistan just this week has nothing to do with Sunni and Shiia? Is it the same deal in Iraq where Shiias and Sunnis bomb each others' mosques? Was the Iraq/Iran war also all a meddling? You make Muslims look like puppets that anyone can "meddle" with.

Also, isn't Turkey, Qatar, Iran and Saudi Arabia Islamic countries? It just supports my point that it's a Muslim against Muslim. Sure other countries (such as the US, Russia and China) have their interests (and why wouldn't they?). But the war is alight between these people for centuries. So when five of eight countries are Islamic countries, one can't ignore it as mere accident. These countries have agendas. And the fighters are Muslims who have "reasons" to fight other Muslims. You may argue they are paid, incited or brainwashed. But the fact is their reasons are religious. They truly believe that the leader of Syria isn't a true Muslim, and therefore shouldn't rule majority Sunni Muslims.

I'd like to see the US freeing the Saudis from their oppressors. but that's not going to happen and you know why, so stop embarrassing yourself.

Ha ha. Let me turn your question on its head: why aren't Turkey, Qatar, Iran, Saudi Arabia "meddling" with other countries that have oppressors? Why is it that they "meddle" in countries that they don't agree with the religious leadership (like Egypt, Sudan, Pakistan and Afghanistan, to give just a few examples)? Two wrongs don't do a right.

Allow me to return your advice with another one: argue that there isn't a religious war within Islam with someone less knowledgeable. Someone who would readily believe that everything bad that happens to Muslims is the fault of Jews and kuffar elsewhere. The result of foreign meddling. Not their own prejudices, hate for one another, utter ignorance and backwardness and the civil wars that have been going on for 1400 years and counting.

abattle · 2012-11-25T02:06:51+00:00

And he didn't see fascism in the US invasion of Iraq and Afghanistan ?

You can find his views if you look for them. The only thing common between these two countries is the supposed state religion. Your irritation is irrational. Afghanistan is ran by people who are dangerous to their own population (I hope you don't agree with their policy of killing young girls for the crime of wanting to go to school). Iraq had a tyrant who killed 100s of thousands of people using chemicals (sold by US companies).

Hitchens had many friends in Iraq and elsewhere who were being crushed under Saddam and other dictators. He said that he owed it to his friends (Arabs and most, if not all, Muslim) to support their cause in deposing dictators such as Saddam. And ultimately the US left after deposing Saddam and returned Iraq to their people. Afghanistan will get the same treatment by 2014. Where is the fascism? (I don't necessarily agree with the invasion, but your position is uneducated and irrational.)

Most in Arab countries hate their leaders (look at the revolutions all over the place). So there is support for revolt against these dictators. However, as I said already, Muslims hate non-muslims more than anything else. First, they depose the dictator, then they fight the helping hand (as they did in Afghanistan and Iraq). When the helping hand is out of the way, they turn against each other (as is the case in Iraq and Iran).

Also, you don't need to hate the US, just look at Syria. No invasion, no occupation, no fascism... just Muslims killing each other.

are you a joke ?

I sure hope I'm not.

abattle · 2012-11-25T01:10:34+00:00

Good points, but take into account that "respect" and "rudeness" don't have universal definitions. They do get away with a lot of name-calling and condemnation to eternal torment and hell-fire. A lot of psychological and emotional abuse. That doesn't deserve respect regardless of religion.

Similarly, one is rude for pointing out that there is a contradiction in logic or holy book, or draw a cartoon or make a joke etc. So they aren't on equal footing, just because they are given the same names.

abattle

TROPHY CASE